A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key‐based method

A comparative clinical study on the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions using a new reference key‐based method

Objectives The objective of this study was to systematically compare the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions in patients using a new reference key‐based method. Material and methods Thirty‐nine cases were included in the study (upper jaw 22 edentulous, 8 partially edent...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Clinical oral implants research Vol. 32; no. 4; pp. 460 - 469
Main Authors: Schmidt, Alexander, Rein, Peter Engelbert, Wöstmann, Bernd, Schlenz, Maximiliane Amelie
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: Denmark Wiley Subscription Services, Inc 01-04-2021
Subjects:
Accuracy
clinical study
Computer-Aided Design
Dental Implants
Dental Impression Materials
Dental Impression Technique
Dental Models
Dentistry
Deviation
digital dentistry
Dimensional analysis
dimensional measurement accuracy
Edentulous
Humans
Imaging, Three-Dimensional
Implants
intraoral scanner
Jaw
Mandible
Mathematical analysis
Mathematical models
Maxilla
Model testing
Mouth, Edentulous
Statistical analysis
Variance analysis
clinical study
dental impression technique
dimensional measurement accuracy
intraoral scanner
dental implants
digital dentistry
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Objectives The objective of this study was to systematically compare the transfer accuracy of conventional and digital implant impressions in patients using a new reference key‐based method. Material and methods Thirty‐nine cases were included in the study (upper jaw 22 edentulous, 8 partially edentulous, average distance between implants 30.15 ± 11.18 mm; lower jaw 6 cases edentulous, 3 cases partially edentulous, average distance between implants 33.19 ± 14.85 mm). Individual reference keys were manufactured and reversibly fixed on implants. A conventional (CVI) and a digital (DI) implant impression was made. The implant positions (center points) of conventional and digital models were measured (coordinate‐measuring machine/three‐dimensional analysis software) and superimposed with the positions of the reference keys to compare the deviations of the conventional and digital models. For statistical analysis, ANOVA with MIXED procedure was applied (p < .05). Results Mean deviation ranged from 0.040±0.029 mm (DI/upper jaw) to 0.079 ± 0.050 mm (DI/lower jaw). There were significant differences between the CVI and DI impressions in the lower jaw (p < .05). No significant differences in transfer accuracy were found between partially and completely edentulous patients for the impression methods. Conclusions Within the limits of the present study, it can be concluded that full‐arch digital implant impressions of the upper jaw in partially or completely edentulous patients showed comparable results to conventional implant impressions. However, with regard to the implant position transfer accuracy, there are still limitations for digital impression in the lower jaw.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-1
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
content type line 23
ISSN:0905-7161
1600-0501
DOI:10.1111/clr.13715